If you have thousands of examples of censorship over the past 18 months that you can share, doesn't that disapprove your accusations of censorship? If there were censorship, you wouldn't be able to share any examples because the examples would be censored.
The only people I've seen being attacked for their views on Covid are outside the scientific community. People that have no business saying whether it's dangerous or not because they havent done any real research. And of course you have the scientists that are being political. Just like we have scientists that deny climate change for political or monetary reasons.
You can add Dr. Peter McCullough to that list. Youtube removed his video [1] which contained a few slides from one of the most highly cited and extensively authored peer-reviewed publications on treating COVID-19 patients with existing medicines.
The video has since been reinstated, only after the issue was escalated all the way up to the state attorney general.
An interview with Karol Sikora was taken down. [2]
An interview with Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi was taken down. [3]
I found all of those just by searching DDG with the text of each item in the list I gave, along with the word "youtube". Deeper digging would probably have revealed more.
I'm not sure what your point is, I'm simply restating the source you quoted:
"Here's an incomplete list of such "nutjobs" who would fall under YouTube's policy of eliminating all views that the risk of the virus has been vastly overstated and that the mitigation measures are doing far more harm than good:"
Note "would fall under" not "were removed". It's not surprising to me that some were removed from youtube, but the list wasn't based on people who had been censored.
Funnily enough though, looking back all three of those hucksters were demonstrably wrong in many of their claims.
Here are some doctors and scientists with "different" views - ie ideas and facts you are unlikely to hear about from mainstream media, and divisive vax versus anti-vax rhetoric.
A) Multidrug treatment using existing medicines early in the symptomatic phase of COVID-19 can dramatically reduce the risk of hospitalization and death [1][2][3]. Coming from front-line doctors actually treating COVID-19 patients, and highly educated and published researchers, this is the most cited literature on the topic that does not concern vaccines.
B) Naturally infected individuals who have recovered acquire robust and durable immunity, and are unlikely to benefit from subsequent vaccination [4][5][6][7].
C) Mandatory nonpharmaceutical interventions such as masks and quarantine may lead to particularly devastating seasons of endemic illnesses such as influenza and RSV [8]. This may further strain medical and healthcare facilities and affect our ability to mitigate the pandemic.
D) Compulsory mass vaccination - combined with vaccines that do not necessarily prevent infection and transmission - may cause selective pressure that further enhances the fitness of the virus [9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. This can lead to partial or complete immune escape which manifests as increased transmission or virulence, reduced vaccine efficacy, and reduced protection in individuals with naturally acquired immunity.
My comment is in the spirit of fostering vigorous scientific debate in the context of "legitimate disagreements about Covid-19" as discussed in the OP. I did not make any claims about censorship or intend to insinuate such.
The coverage in the media given to non-scientific points of view is also a problem, often turning into blatant propaganda.
I'm thinking of things like the story making the rounds last week about Jennifer Aniston cutting off contact with vaccinated friends, and the one about three unnamed people allegedly fired from cnn for not vaccinating. So many stories with scary headlines and adjectives that don't belong in news articles, and one-sided statistics trying to scare people. Basically telling them what to think.
Instead of educating people the establishment would rather manipulate them. The media and social networks seem happy to oblige. Shouting down those who disagree causes problems in the long run.
Sure, as long as they are qualified to offer a true scientific opinion, and are recognized as having expertise in the fields of epidemiology, infectious diseases and/ or other closely related fields, sounds great to me. And as long as they have experimental results that back up their claims, and that other qualified scientists are able to reproduce the results of said experiments.
Otherwise, no, those "scientists" should be attacked and spurned, and have their medical licenses pulled if they recommend harmful advice or opinions. Doctors must take the Hippocratic Oath, and one of the key central promises within that oath is "first, do no harm."
As an example, Donald Trump promoted a doctor, Dr. Stella Immanuel, a little-known Houston-based physician, who has claimed alien DNA was used in medical treatments.
Immanuel is the founder of the Fire Power Ministries Church and has, among other things, claimed that sex with "tormenting spirits" is responsible for gynecological problems, miscarriages and impotence.
She claimed, "Many women suffer from astral sex regularly. Astral sex is the ability to project one's spirit man into the victim's body and have intercourse with it."
According to Immanuel, she "summarizing our deliverance ministry and exposing incubus and succubus." She was in a video was removed from Facebook, YouTube and Twitter after amassing millions of views
22 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 58.1 ms ] threadLike Dr. Fauci? There are scientists being political on both sides, but only one side is censored.
Also, here is a list that someone else compiled [1] of censored scientists:
* John Ioannidis, Professor of Medicine, Stanford University
* Scott Atlas, Stanford University
* Karol Sikora, dean of Buckingham U medical school
* Prof Detlef Krüger, virologist, Berlin
* Prof Johan Giesecke, former EU chief epidemiologist
* Michael Levitt, Nobel Prize laureate, biologist
* Prof Christopher Kuhbandner
* Prof Carl Heneghan, Oxford University
* Prof Sucharit Bhakdi, microbiology, Mainz
* Prof Mikko Paunio, epidemiologist, Finland
* Prof Dan Yamin, infectious disease, Tel Aviv University
* Prof Karin Moelling, virology, U of Zurich
* Professor Klaus Püschel, forensic medicine
* Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, physician, Germany
And [2] is an article talking about the censorship.
[1]: https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/46573762/why-is-yo...
[2]: https://jacobinmag.com/2021/05/big-tech-censorship-science-c...
The video has since been reinstated, only after the issue was escalated all the way up to the state attorney general.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxmhvZ6eEI4
No, that's a list of scientists some internet person thinks might have expressed stuff (not on YouTube) that might have violated YouTube's policy.
It's not clear if any were "censored" anywhere.
An interview with Karol Sikora was taken down. [2]
An interview with Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi was taken down. [3]
I found all of those just by searching DDG with the text of each item in the list I gave, along with the word "youtube". Deeper digging would probably have revealed more.
[1]: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/09/14/youtube-censors-vi...
[2]: https://gript.ie/youtube-censors-covid-19-video-with-former-...
[3]: https://reclaimthenet.org/youtube-deletes-video-with-dr-such...
"Here's an incomplete list of such "nutjobs" who would fall under YouTube's policy of eliminating all views that the risk of the virus has been vastly overstated and that the mitigation measures are doing far more harm than good:"
Note "would fall under" not "were removed". It's not surprising to me that some were removed from youtube, but the list wasn't based on people who had been censored.
Funnily enough though, looking back all three of those hucksters were demonstrably wrong in many of their claims.
A) Multidrug treatment using existing medicines early in the symptomatic phase of COVID-19 can dramatically reduce the risk of hospitalization and death [1][2][3]. Coming from front-line doctors actually treating COVID-19 patients, and highly educated and published researchers, this is the most cited literature on the topic that does not concern vaccines.
B) Naturally infected individuals who have recovered acquire robust and durable immunity, and are unlikely to benefit from subsequent vaccination [4][5][6][7].
C) Mandatory nonpharmaceutical interventions such as masks and quarantine may lead to particularly devastating seasons of endemic illnesses such as influenza and RSV [8]. This may further strain medical and healthcare facilities and affect our ability to mitigate the pandemic.
D) Compulsory mass vaccination - combined with vaccines that do not necessarily prevent infection and transmission - may cause selective pressure that further enhances the fitness of the virus [9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. This can lead to partial or complete immune escape which manifests as increased transmission or virulence, reduced vaccine efficacy, and reduced protection in individuals with naturally acquired immunity.
[1] Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(20)30673-2/fulltex...
[2] Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) https://scholarlycommons.henryford.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
[3] Peter McCullough, MD testifies to Texas Senate HHS Committee https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAHi3lX3oGM
[4] SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4.pdf
[5] Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody responses and memory B and T cells https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-37...
[6] Antibody Responses 8 Months after Asymptomatic or Mild SARS-CoV-2 Infection https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7920668/
[7] Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...
[8] The impact of COVID-19 nonpharmaceutical interventions on the future dynamics of endemic infections https://www.pnas.org/content/117/48/30547
[9] Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/
[10] SARS-CoV-2 immune evasion by...
I'm thinking of things like the story making the rounds last week about Jennifer Aniston cutting off contact with vaccinated friends, and the one about three unnamed people allegedly fired from cnn for not vaccinating. So many stories with scary headlines and adjectives that don't belong in news articles, and one-sided statistics trying to scare people. Basically telling them what to think.
Instead of educating people the establishment would rather manipulate them. The media and social networks seem happy to oblige. Shouting down those who disagree causes problems in the long run.
Otherwise, no, those "scientists" should be attacked and spurned, and have their medical licenses pulled if they recommend harmful advice or opinions. Doctors must take the Hippocratic Oath, and one of the key central promises within that oath is "first, do no harm."
As an example, Donald Trump promoted a doctor, Dr. Stella Immanuel, a little-known Houston-based physician, who has claimed alien DNA was used in medical treatments.
Immanuel is the founder of the Fire Power Ministries Church and has, among other things, claimed that sex with "tormenting spirits" is responsible for gynecological problems, miscarriages and impotence.
She claimed, "Many women suffer from astral sex regularly. Astral sex is the ability to project one's spirit man into the victim's body and have intercourse with it."
According to Immanuel, she "summarizing our deliverance ministry and exposing incubus and succubus." She was in a video was removed from Facebook, YouTube and Twitter after amassing millions of views